Weiyuan Huang1,2, Elizabeth M Sweeney3, Ulrike W Kaunzner4, Yi Wang2,5, Susan A Gauthier4, Thanh D Nguyen2. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Hainan General Hospital (Hainan Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University), Haikou, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. Penn Statistics in Imaging and Visualization Endeavor (PennSIVE) Center, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 5. Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and high-pass-filtered (HPF) phase imaging for (1) identifying chronic active rim lesions with more myelin damage and (2) distinguishing patients with increased clinical disability in multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Eighty patients were scanned with QSM for paramagnetic rim detection and Fast Acquisition with Spiral Trajectory and T2prep for myelin water fraction (MWF). Chronic lesions were classified based on the presence/absence of rim on HPF and QSM images. A lesion-level linear mixed-effects model with MWF as the outcome was used to compare myelin damage among the lesion groups. A multiple patient-level linear regression model was fit to establish the association between Expanded Disease Status Scale (EDSS) and the log of the number of rim lesions. RESULTS: Of 2062 lesions, 188 (9.1%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim+, 203 (9.8%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim-, and the remainder had no rim. In the linear mixed-effects model, HPF rim+/QSM rim+ lesions had significantly lower MWF than both HPF rim+/QSM rim- (p < .001) and HPF rim-/QSM rim- (p < .001) lesions, while the MWF difference between HPF rim+/QSM rim- and HPF rim-/QSM rim- lesions was not statistically significant (p = .130). Holding all other factors constant, the log number of QSM rim+ lesion was associated with EDSS increase (p = .044). The association between the log number of HPF rim+ lesions and EDSS was not statistically significant (p = .206). CONCLUSIONS: QSM identifies paramagnetic rim lesions that on average have more myelin damage and stronger association with clinical disability than those detected by phase imaging.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and high-pass-filtered (HPF) phase imaging for (1) identifying chronic active rim lesions with more myelin damage and (2) distinguishing patients with increased clinical disability in multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Eighty patients were scanned with QSM for paramagnetic rim detection and Fast Acquisition with Spiral Trajectory and T2prep for myelin water fraction (MWF). Chronic lesions were classified based on the presence/absence of rim on HPF and QSM images. A lesion-level linear mixed-effects model with MWF as the outcome was used to compare myelin damage among the lesion groups. A multiple patient-level linear regression model was fit to establish the association between Expanded Disease Status Scale (EDSS) and the log of the number of rim lesions. RESULTS: Of 2062 lesions, 188 (9.1%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim+, 203 (9.8%) were HPF rim+/QSM rim-, and the remainder had no rim. In the linear mixed-effects model, HPF rim+/QSM rim+ lesions had significantly lower MWF than both HPF rim+/QSM rim- (p < .001) and HPF rim-/QSM rim- (p < .001) lesions, while the MWF difference between HPF rim+/QSM rim- and HPF rim-/QSM rim- lesions was not statistically significant (p = .130). Holding all other factors constant, the log number of QSM rim+ lesion was associated with EDSS increase (p = .044). The association between the log number of HPF rim+ lesions and EDSS was not statistically significant (p = .206). CONCLUSIONS: QSM identifies paramagnetic rim lesions that on average have more myelin damage and stronger association with clinical disability than those detected by phase imaging.
Authors: Kathryn E Hammond; Meredith Metcalf; Lucas Carvajal; Darin T Okuda; Radhika Srinivasan; Dan Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel Pelletier Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Martina Absinta; Pascal Sati; Matthew Schindler; Emily C Leibovitch; Joan Ohayon; Tianxia Wu; Alessandro Meani; Massimo Filippi; Steven Jacobson; Irene C M Cortese; Daniel S Reich Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Xu Li; Daniel M Harrison; Hongjun Liu; Craig K Jones; Jiwon Oh; Peter A Calabresi; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Cynthia Wisnieff; Sriram Ramanan; John Olesik; Susan Gauthier; Yi Wang; David Pitt Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tian Liu; Ildar Khalidov; Ludovic de Rochefort; Pascal Spincemaille; Jing Liu; A John Tsiouris; Yi Wang Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Maria A Rocca; Olga Ciccarelli; Nicola De Stefano; Nikos Evangelou; Ludwig Kappos; Alex Rovira; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Mar Tintorè; Jette L Frederiksen; Claudio Gasperini; Jacqueline Palace; Daniel S Reich; Brenda Banwell; Xavier Montalban; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Nicole Zinger; Gerald Ponath; Elizabeth Sweeney; Thanh D Nguyen; Chih Hung Lo; Ivan Diaz; Alexey Dimov; Leilei Teng; Lily Zexter; Joseph Comunale; Yi Wang; David Pitt; Susan A Gauthier Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2022-01-19